Remove ads

Back to the Past: Call of Duty WWII

prometheus110 said:
From what I hear from IGN's Podcast Unlocked, it'll be focused on the Western Front and ignore pretty much everywhere else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's a surprising amount of misinformation about 'World' War 2. Did you know it was actually a strictly regional conflict from 1941-1945 of the US vs Germany in Europe? Then once Ward Bond was done shooting down a Luftwaffe fighter with a Tommy gun and shaving Hitler's moustache and calling him 'toots', he bombed some other place twice and everyone went home for cake and hotdogs.
 
TBH I want a game spent breaking through the Siegfried Line.

And by breaking through I mean grinding fruitlessly at a network for bunkers and forrests for weeks until the Germans blow their load in the Ardennes. Later missions focussing on the Ruhr Pocket or something.

I mean for the only battle where arguably the Wallies and the Germans were on a level playing field (the Allies being stretched too thin to concentrate and break through whilst the Germans having a shit ton of good defences and terrain) mixed with some rather impressive and brutal battles with everyone from Volkstrum and stomach battalions to Paratroopers on the German side and Commandos and regiments so depleted by the campaign and lack of R&R they basically broke down whenever they were forced back into fire for a few days on the allied.

You could really mix and match with grinding and dishearteningly pointless slaughters in the early game to dynamic and dramatic fighting during Northwind or the Battle of the Bulge followed by the last days of the war. You even have the fucking battlefield flooding once so amphibians had to be brought up to keep things going if I recall right. There is a lot of diversity there on a front and period that I don't think has been done before.
 
Last edited:
Tons of narratives haven't been utilized because they aren't seen as marketable. In other cases they go unused because English histories of the war are terrible and leave little room for lucid understanding of events. When sources describe the defeated German Division as being "swept away" by Allied forces they're doing the reader a disservice if they provide no other context and they usually don't.

I mean the narrative possibilities of the 2nd World War are virtually unlimited. You've just got the wrong people with the wrong incentives in charge of making the games about it.
 
DocHawkeye said:
Tons of narratives haven't been utilized because they aren't seen as marketable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which is strange, because I would play the hell out of a game if it had some of the British Commando raids in it. Like rowing up a heavily defended river in France, to attack an anchorage, in a collapsible canoe.
 
Triggerhappy said:
Two words : Operation Chariot.

Nothing like force feeding a destroyer sized bomb into the only Turpitz/Bismark usable dry-dock on the Atlantic seaboard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Burning Baron said:
Medal of Honor: European Aussault.

Saboteur, technically.

Well, if they include that time that Patton tried to use air power to break open German lines, only for the bombers to drop short, it would certainly be original.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Burning Baron said:
Medal of Honor: European Aussault.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That game also had you conduct Operation Chariot as an ahistorical OSS American as part of the mission.

Or maybe EA dug it up from a secret historical document.


There have been WW2 games about other areas.
Medal of Honor Pacific Assault didn't sell that well, so perhaps it isn't that marketable. Though MOH only tried new things only after people were burnt out with MOH series.

There isn't really a WW2 game about mainland Asia conflicts from big budget western devs, just the island pushes in the Pacific, and not many of those.

Western Europe gets a lot of coverage especially post 1944. Not much 1940. Eastern Europe gets a lot of Stalingrad focus.
British North Africa and Middle East WW2 campaigns get some focus.

Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Winter War, don't get much focus.

Mediterranean area and Italy get less focus as well.
 
Last edited:
So COD is going back to its roots with a game that seems less interesting, and less detailed than the games they made a decade ago on the exact same subject. Solid plan.
 
Memory serves, wasn't there a CryEngine game about the Warsaw Uprising a year or so back? I heard it was kinda eh but know I'm thinking a whole lot more charitably for it.
 
Honestly no matter what battles it has or with who the European theater has been over played in media. If they're determined to make a WW2 game the Pacific is far less well traveled ground and at least there no one will get pissed if you only have Americans, even if it's less than accurate.
 
Guys, it's time for the reunion again. Last one up the beach pays for the keg!

The sad thing to me is that they're aping the seriousness of BF1 while being so generic.
 
MobiusOneDT said:
Reznov was far and away the best part of the WaW Russian Campaign. Gary Oldman did an AMAZING job.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And I am absolutely convinced that Shouty McRussian begat a child who eventually begat Shouty McRussian in Air Force One. And not just because they're both Gary Oldman.

There's a lot of underrated characters in the earlier franchise. Like Isabell in CoD 3. She was a total badass.
 
On one hand, I'm trying (and failing) to be surprised there is nothing about the Eastern Front.

On the other, I'm happy there isn't - at least we wouldn't get anything as stupid as second Company of Heroes' campaign.
 
Sadly this is Sledgehammer, not Treyarch, so we can't have the twist ending be "this is actually a DNI sim and everything is actually a mindfuck"

A WW2 campaign for Black Ops 3 would be the most amazing shit
 
Call of Duty is a long standing, traditionally entrenched shooter based heavily on the mechanics and twitch gameplay of 90s shooters like Quake and Wolfenstien. Numerous parallel threads emerged from these basics such as Medal of Honor and Counter Strike that all influenced each other to various degrees. Fundamentally you have a game built around de-emphasizing the strength of your individual enemies as much as possible while emphasizing the player's strength and influence over the game world. I simply do not think the title lends itself to any kind of narrative that does not feed the player's hero (or anti-hero) fantasies. Imagine if the games were more like Metro or shit even Half Life? You might actually be able to do a Call of Duty: Spanish Civil War and people might learn crazy ideas like how hard war is on average people. Since they aren't that, you have to portray the enemy (ie: people) as individually worthless and irrelevant opponents that the player possesses a comfortable advantage over at all times and even on the highest difficulty. It's Serious Sam or Doom except the enemies are not demon or alien abstractions of concepts like evil or anger. The imagery is specifically humans, which the games dehumanize either intentionally or not.
 
Teen Spirit said:
Yes go back to the narrow focus that drove the gamer public to become bored with WWII games.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Everyone knows WW1 is the new Hotness.

I'm honestly underwhelmed by this though and like, I would rather have Battlefield 1944 or whatever if they made it. I used to be a super loyal buyer but I haven't even played AW and hardly looked at the last one. Ghosts was the last straw. Meanwhile the prodigal daughter returns to Dice and I cannot wait for The Fatted Calf the rest of the DLCs. If they made it I would be like "HELL YEAH" but I trust them way more now than Sledgehammer.
 
I was hoping this game would be set on the Western and Eastern fronts of the conflict where you could play as a US soldier, British soldier and Soviet soldier. Sadly it won't be the case.

Might not get this game when it comes out than.
 
How Call of Duty: WW2 handles swastikas and female soldiers

I like how Call of Duty is implementing minorities and lady soldiers in multiplayer, which is not actually realistic at all, even though it's keeping them out of the campaign. Like, I understand keeping the campaign historically authentic or at least giving it that level of verisimilitude (although the CoD multi character conceit would have been great to let you play like, different characters, some of whom weren't white [or just play a member of the 442nd, because holy shit the stories of those guys]), but multiplayer is basically an airsoft game with squibs and WW2 themed toys. Who cares if you want to be a queer black woman GI? Just go with it.
 
Vehrec said:
I would support an Imperial-German campaign in BF1, provided a few conditions. The player character must be a black African under Lettow-Vorbek, and let's make no bones about the pillaging and the conscription of whole villages as porters. They were not the only undefeated German army by being kind and considerate of the natives, and there were plenty of bad hombres in that army who were fleeing punishment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Modern 'gamers' would throw a shitfit about having to play a Black African in anything- much less a Black African in the "efficient" German Imperial Army.

Edit: Admittedly, You could make a WW2 game based on both the European and Pacific Fronts where all the playable characters are Black US Soldiers. That too, however, would cause modern 'gamers' of the same type who are angry at Wolfenstein for being Anti-White to throw a shitfit: it's bad enough to have a Jewish-through-Golem-Ancestry Aryan superman murdering Nazis; having the Nazis getting murdered by black people would cause them to blow a gasket.
 
Last edited:
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top